On 7/22/21 1:54 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi Sandra,
> 
> On 21.07.21 20:01, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> Hmmm. CFI_establish explicitly says that the elem_len has to be 
>> greater than zero.  It seems somewhat confusing that it's inconsistent 
>> with the other functions that take an elem_len argument.
> 
> Congratulation – we have found a bug in the spec, which is also
> present in the current draft (21-007). I have now written to J3:
> https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2021-July/013189.html

That discussion seems to have wandered off into some other direction so 
I'm not sure whether it really clarifies this problem.  For the purposes 
of this patch I have left in the test for elem_len > 0 in CFI_establish 
where the standard explicitly has that requirement and removed it from 
the other functions where I'd added it just to be consistent.

>>> How about PRIiPTR + ptrdiff_t instead of %d + (int) cast? At least as 
>>> positive value, extent may exceed INT_MAX.
>> Hmmm, there are similar problems in existing code in other functions 
>> in this file (e.g., CFI_section).
> 
> I think that you could fix as well. At least for size(array), it is not 
> uncommon that this exceeds MAX_INT.

OK, I have done that throughout the file, and also made the wording 
change you asked for.  While I was at it, I went through all the 
diagnostic messages in the file and simplified the wording of a few 
other messages as well, fixed typos and inconsistent capitalization and 
missing punctuation and things like that.  As documentation maintainer I 
can self-approve those changes but of course I'll address complaints 
from the Fortran experts with what I've done there.

Here's a new patch.  For this version I've split off the fixes for the 
new tests in the TS29113 testsuite and merged them back into a new 
version of the main patch, which I will be posting soon.

-Sandra